Loading...

Chandrakant vs State on 9 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Chandrakant vs State on 9 February, 2011
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/16506/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 

	
	 

 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16506 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

CHANDRAKANT
BHAGWANJIBHAI POPAT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
 
 


 

MR ASPI M
KAPADIA for
Petitioner : 1, 
MS MONALI BHATT ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents : 1-2, 4, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondents : 1, 3,
5, 
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for Respondent : 3, 
MR PRABHAV A MEHTA 
with MR NIRAV A JOSHI for Respondent :
5, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/02/2011 

 

 
 


 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)

1. The
petition is based upon the apprehension that respondent No.5 is
likely to take possession of land in excess of the land which is
acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of road. There is no
dispute about the fact that, out of the land bearing survey No.42/1
of village Magdalla, district Surat, 1827 sq. mtrs. of land is
acquired and, according to the petitioner, the remaining land of that
survey number belongs to and remains with the petitioner. It was
strenuously argued by learned counsel Mr.Kapadia that, by all
indications respondent No.5 was trying to take possession of
additional land without it being acquired in accordance with law and
the petitioner is likely to face permanent loss of the land belonging
to him.

2. As
against that, learned counsel Mr.Prabhav Mehta, appearing for
respondent No.5, pointed out from letter dated 08.5.2010 of Project
Director of respondent No.5 that no land from the land bearing
survey/block No.42/1 of village Magdalla is to be acquired at present
for the captioned project work as there was already 60 mtr. N.H.-
ROW (National Highway-Right of Work) available at the location. It
was further orally stated, on instruction, by learned counsel
Mr.Mehta that respondent No.5 was neither encroaching nor intending
to encroach upon the land which is not acquired by and for the
purpose of respondent No.5.

3. Admittedly,
there are questions of disputed facts regarding exact measurement of
the land in question and its location, which disputes could be
resolved only by fresh survey and measurement by an authorised
agency, such as District Inspector of Land Records (DILR), according
to the submission. Therefore, any dispute about the factual position
of the lands already acquired and the lands remaining with the
petitioner could only be resolved in the proper forum and alternative
remedies are available to the parties for that purpose. Under such
circumstances, this Court would not be justified in entertaining this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for deciding issues of
facts, if any are required to be resolved. Therefore, the petition is
dismissed, with the clarification that the parties would be at
liberty to approach the appropriate forum, i.e. the Civil Court of
competent jurisdiction, or make appropriate application for survey
and measurement of the land in question by DILR. Notice is
discharged with no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(
D.H.Waghela, J.)

Sd/-

(
K.A.Puj, J.)

(KMG
Thilake)

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information